Squadrons not single ships...

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
IronDuke
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:28 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Squadrons not single ships...

Post by IronDuke »

On this board, and elswhere, one often reads 'What ifs' that put one ship up against another, very often ships that were highly unlikely to fight each other in real life.

Many of the ships built in the 20's and 30's, especially in Britain and the US were built to 'treaty limits', rather than the best possible design. On top of this, especially in Britain, there was both a shortage of funds for Naval construction -and reconstrction- and a strong (if foolish) desire for peace at almost any price. A combination of these factors led to a relative emasculation of the Royal Navy by 1939, compared to the mighty force it had been in 1919.

Yes in 1939 the RN was still, just, the largest in the world, but she also had by far the largest commitments, relative to any other nation with a world wide Empire and Commonwealth to defend, with, at that stage, relatively small help at sea from Australia, Canada and New Zealand, etc.

Meanwhile a series of diplomatic errors, often fuelled by an almost insane belief in the Leauge of Nations, had led Britain into a situation where Germany, Italy and Japan were all potental enemies, in Home Waters, the Med and the Far East. With the USA firmly neutral, only France had any seapower at all to back up the RN.

Thanks to successive Governments -not to mention a very substantial part of public opinion that, in the 1930's was 'peace at almost any price'- British re-armament was both too little and too late: Thus, for example you have the RN settling on the 14 inch gun KGV's, rather than the 16inch gun ships they wanted, since the RN was desperate to get some new fast Battleships with the fleet, rather than waiting a year or two for larger guns, etc.

Once the War started, with three actual or potential enemies threatening most parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth, the Country was always playing catch-up (and rapidly going bankrupt into the bargin) while the Royal Navy was always thinly spread and trying to do too much with too little.

However, on results the RN did amazingly well, winning, often against the odds most of its battles and Campaigns and, ultimately playing a vital role in winning the War. Eventually, aided by it's Allies, the RN vanquished both the German and Italian Navy's, was a major part in landing great Armies in North Africa and Europe, and sent a powerful British Pacific Fleet to help the USN finally crush Japan. This was a fighting record second to none.

Sorry this has been a long post, but my major point is really this, when you look at a hypothetical battle you would be much better, and more realistic, to look at two squadrons of warships engaging each other, so Battleships, Cruisers and Destroyers, to say nothing of Carriers and or land based Air Power: This is what real Admirals did -and do- not looking at two unescorted Battleships, or whatever, slugging it out like a pair of punch drunk boxers...
Ted
"It only takes two or three years to build a ship but three hundred to build a tradition" Admiral Cunningham RN
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Squadrons not single ships...

Post by Bgile »

I agree, but people enjoy comparing the characteristics of individual navy's attempts to come up with a good battleship. One way to compare them is to hypothesize individual combat between them, even though we know it would be next to impossible for that to ever happen. I believe that kind of comparison was done by the actual navies involved as well. Things get really messy when you add in the other ships likely to be present and you lose track of the capabilities of individual ships. Of course after the Norwegian campaign the German navy didn't have much left in the way of destroyers and for various reasons their CLs weren't terribly useful.
User avatar
IronDuke
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:28 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Squadrons not single ships...

Post by IronDuke »

Oh sure, I know why people do it, but it is a very artificial concept, since, as you say, in reality ships seldom fought alone with out supporting Cruisers and escorting Destroyers.

The German lack of escorts -although they certainly used Destroyers to support their Heavy ships in some operations- and indeed the Germans lack of numbers of ships of all types led to them operating, or trying to operate, mainly against Allied convoys, avoiding action with major enemy units, when they could, for the most part. That 'mindset' too will effect any action...
Ted
"It only takes two or three years to build a ship but three hundred to build a tradition" Admiral Cunningham RN
Post Reply